Posted on 02/20/2016 10:43:13 PM PST by springwater13
72 percent.
That's the number of Republican voters in South Carolina's primary that identified as evangelical or born-again Christians, according to exit polling. That's an eye-popping, record-shattering figure: It was 65 percent in South Carolina's 2012 GOP primary, and 60 percent in 2008.
With three-quarters of the electorate identifying as evangelical, it was shaping up as a great night for Ted Cruz, who launched his campaign at Liberty University and has boasted of building a "firewall" to dominate the March 1 southern states because of their ultra-conservative, religious composition. South Carolina represented the first test of that theory.
Cruz failed. Among South Carolina's evangelical Republican voters, Trump won 33 percent, Cruz won 27 percent, and Rubio won 22 percent. And while Cruz did carry the 38 percent of "very conservative" voters in the state, it wasn't enough to finish anywhere close to Trump. Nor was it enough to beat Rubio, whom he finished roughly 1,000 votes behind.
This spells trouble for Cruz on Super Tuesday. He remains better-organized than any other candidate across the south (which should make a difference, considering both Trump and Rubio benefited from having impressive field operations in South Carolina). But there's no question Cruz's inability to carry the evangelical vote here portends poorly for him in states of similar ideological and demographic makeup.
That's a big problem for Cruz on March 1. But he faces even bigger challenges beyond then. Both Trump and Rubio performed evenly with non-evangelicals in South Carolina: Trump took 30 percent, and Rubio took 22 percent. But Cruz saw a significant drop-off, winning just 13 percent of that group. This echoes Cruz's performance in Iowa (33 percent with evangelicals, 19 percent with non-evangelicals) and New Hampshire (24 percent with evangelicals, 8 percent with non-evangelicals).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
National Review needs to write more articles on conservative front runners Trump and Cruz
quick?
30 years of supporting the left/liberals was a quick learner? Some of his liberal/left leanings are still presenting themselves..
Sorry.. What your laying down is starting to collect flies.
How many Democrats voted in the GOP primary?>>>> i saw an exit poll early on that had 2%.
(I agree with you, btw.)
First -- how did we get this desperate?
Two fold. The deliberate policy of secularization by the left, by capturing all the institutions which shape and guide public opinion: first the schools, then the Universities, (including, quite importantly for later, the Law Schools), and the news press, and the entertainment industries.
Seeding acceptance of homosexuality, to the point that a Lavender mafia promoted itself through mutual back scratching, to achieve multiple positions of high standing within many industries: then foisting "tolerance and diversity" as a cudgel to attack Christians.
(Note that Hillary is now pretty much an open lesbian; the rumors of Obama and the gay bath houses culminating in the "in your FACE" rainbow lights at the White House...and don't forget Denny Hastert (once *GOP* speaker of the House,charged in hush money payments to what is rumored to be an underaged boy)
and the former head of the GOP Ken Mehlman being homosexual, not to mention Cruz getting significant funding from homosexuals and the Rubio "foam party" and other rumors; and on the other side, a relentless pushing of feminaziism, including no-fault divorce, de-stigmatizing of sluttery and the presentation of unwed, single mothers as heroic champions of self-determination rather than stupid whores, affirmative action hiring and mentoring of women over qualified men, and abortion on demand and the pill.
And the deliberate seeding of homosexuals into the Catholic Churches by the KGB. No, I'm not kidding.
Second, on the GOP side, in addition to the seeding in of many Democrat moles, and the loss of the Christian consensus, the replacement by the globalists and the Chamber of Commerce / Cheap Labor Express, who under Bush '41 deliberately sabotaged and threw away ALL of Reagan's accomplishments, and practiced a policy of "run Right, govern left (or at least cave all the time)" relying on a captive left press to cover this up. This has been compounded by the Cheap Labor Express selling out most of the US economy to China, with the foul propaganda that "consumers DEMAND lower prices"...
(Note the counterexamples of high priced athletic shoes, none of those lower costs get passed on; of Apple Products, produced in China yet more expensive than the MicroSUCKS-based products which were also made in China; of (a few years back) the skyrocketing cost of gasoline (both out-of-kilter with the price of oil,*and* subject to rapid, single-day jumps to 25cents/gallon, which is far faster than changes in demand could work their way through the supply chain; and ignoring the inconvenient fact that when stuff from China first began appearing on the shelves, people complained loudly that it was "cheap sh*t" and they WANTED their American-made goods back, but there were none to be had; and finally, remember the toxin-laden drywall from China and melamine ridden pet food (melamine added to goose the sample assay of the pet for for protein, at lower cost and without regard to nutritive value or to toxicity).
Someone on FR had noted the role of "Pappy Bush" (41, the former CIA director) and suggest a lot of the "New World Order" crap came from him; upon reading it, I am inclined to agree; also blame Ted Kennedy, whom I fervently hope is rotting in Hell, for his lying through his foul teeth about the 1965 immigration agreement, designed to replace Caucasians in the US with Third Worlders who share neither our Western-European genes, nor our faith, nor our worldview). See (Vanity) A Look Back at Immigration, or Fifty Years of Lies.
Two things have happened to stop this march. OK, three.
1) The Internet. People have found they can talk to others and that they are not alone. Not just breaking the leftist monopoly on the news (Limbaugh helped with that) but both eliminating the sense of helpless isolation, and replacing it with a) community and b) replacing the "I *knew I saw that somewhere" with the "you said it *HERE*" and getting to pushback in real time. The left is trying to counteract this with Faceberg / Cuckbook, and with the SJW entryism into both Twitter and open-source-programming but these are doomed to fail, as the internet famously "interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
2) Obama. He has been so f*cking BLATANT (along with Nancy Pelosi's triumphant march with the gavel, and John Roberts replacing the literal text of the law with autofellatory blather) that it became quite clear the whole game has been rigged.
and finally, to culminate in the answer to your question
3) Cruz was poised to take advantage of this through his relatively high intellect (I have read 150, but *many* FReepers are well North of that), and Ivy League Pedigree, to monopolize the Evangelicals through laser-focused data analytics on messaging, and become *THE* voice of the resistance. For the GOP-e, THEY were going to "win without the base" as the Big Donor Class told ¿Jeb?, and the rules of the primaries were designed so that (as they thought) Bush would get constant small pluralities in a highly fractured field, causing a bandwagon effect, and preventing the entrance of any populists late in the game.
Enter The Donald. He out-populist'ed Cruz, ironically enough, despite ("Two Corinthians") *NOT* being an Evangelical, simply by shouting over Megyn Kelly when she attempted the timeworn "war on womyn" trope which she though would sink him, and he did it in particularly clever way: when she listed what he'd said 'about some women',he answered "ROSIE O'DONNELL". This did several things: a) it allowed him to lightning-rod the anger to ground, since he chose a target whom pretty much ALL Republicans dislike; b) he didn't cower or squirm, he reframed (red pill); he got a cathartic cheer from gazillions of those on the right who were tired of GOTCHA questions only given to Republicans while democrats got the customary reach-around-with-a-complimentary-chocolate-on-the-pilllow from the press. So he stole BOTH Cruz's thunder (I am the savior populism -- Cruz didn't help by being off-scale smug and condescending, nor by his choice of that Roe guy to run dirty tricks, which undercut Cruz's squeaky-clean Christian image)...and did to Bush, what Bush had hoped to do to the field, by garnering a plurality in a divided field.
There. 16 volumes, 35 million words.
I take chocolate and AMERICAN Express. ;-)
‘It is beyond me why the big issue about Cruz isn’t his eligibility problem.’
Well said!
The founders wanted to ensure undivided loyalty to USA.
Anyone who has any ties to another country (by place of birth, by parentage...) will always have a soft spot for that other country.
Case in point -
Rubio - definitely wants to help out people from his father’s country (and other ‘Latinos’), hence the push for Amnesty.
obama - we all see what happened
Cruz - when conflicts arise between Cuba (his father’s country) and USA, at best, he will have a hard time deciding whether to act in the interests of USA or his other country/countries (or outright defend the other country/countries).
Certainly, nbc such as the Clintons are traitors, but their actions are for the love of money, not for the love of any countries.
That is why we need to elect those who have undivided loyalty (nbc) and who have the ability and intention to defend the best interests of USA and its people.
It is easy to choose those who have undivided loyalty (i.e. the nbc of USA as intended by the founding fathers), but it is not easy to determine who will defend the best interests of USA.
We would be wise to be objective in our observation, and, be strategic in weighing the political situation -
Who has the character and strength to do what he says he will do?
What kind of leader do we need now to defeat the media and uniparty?
Brought in a lot of Trump voters also known as democrats>>> i saw and exit poll at 2%. but 75% republican want to temporarily stop muslim immigration.
There is one front runner.
There are two middle of the pack runners.
There are three stragglers.
Cruz is by no stretch of the imagination a front runner. Even Rubio beat him yesterday.
I attended a number of Cruz rallies in NH. Cruz was quoting Scripture and asking us to pray.
>>The point? He panders to Christianity only if there is a chance for his own political gain, not for the gain of God’s Kingdom.
Your God is very small if he needs Ted Cruz, or any of us, to create gains for his Kingdom. My God is sovereign over all creation. In fact, his Kingdom has done quite well in times and places where the church was persecuted. And I mean REALLY persecuted and not just subjected to “Happy Holidays” at Target.
Actually George Carlin said that, unless you're only claiming credit for adding 'Democrat' and now 'Trump' to the tail end. There too, I suspect others said it before you.
Thank you for extending it to me, please let me know how much I owe you, and I will forward the royalties to dead George.
Since calling me and others stupid is the best argument you came up with against Trump so far, and you have done just that, call me stupid, I welcome a discourse including any additional well reasoned and logical original or stolen argument you can muster against my current choice, so long as it's not another worn out cliche from a dead comedian.
Question to be asked now Jeb has officially dropped out where will his voters and delegates go? If they are PRO Amnesty they will go to Rubio is the logical thinking as they are political twins.
You’re assuming Cruz supporters will go Trump which was a safe bet 2 months ago before a nasty campaign. Look this morning on FR, Trump supporters are as nasty as ever, that doesn’t say, hey join our team.
Pick Rubio or stay home are the only other options if Cruz were to bail from the race.
So is it correct to say Romney, Trump, and Rockefeller are in one group and Santorum, Cruz, and Goldwater are in another?
Even if Cruz is able to contend for the Republican nomination, he is a terrible candidate for the general.
He DOES come off as a slick, smooth talking, phony politician/lawyer. Honestly, I don’t mind the guy, but when I hear him speak and imagine everyone else assessing him, I cringe.
Both Cruz and Rubio sound like your normal b.s. politician. Trying to sound grandiose and moving. Trump just speaks - plain, to the point, and NOT p.c.
This has struck so many people who are so sick of the politicians/media telling us how we can or cannot think and what we can say.
To make sense of who won which states in 2012, you have to look at which states voted before Romney was declared the winner (on Super Tuesday) and which voted after.
Santorum stayed in and won several states AFTER Romney had won and most others dropped out. The same for Huckabee in 2008. Many votes were against McCain and Romney and not necessarily for Huckabee and Santorum in late voting states.
You are spot on. I do believe most Christians don’t like theatrical preachers and Cruz looks and acts a lot like, for instance, Jim Bakker. I personally don’t trust big name evangelists; egoists most of them who happen to live rich lives. Christianity was designed to be solely in homes and hearts. “Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
Good points!
That may actually help Rubio.
Go Ted Crews!
Have you ever actually considered how much a state weighs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.